When the first commercially available 55" OLED HDTVs came out a year ago, the thing that set them apart was their curved screens. Even a casual observer could tell the TVs were different, but critics did not fall in love with the new shape. Simply put, curved screens make no sense at small screen sizes—unless there is only one viewer.

Photo credit: LG

On the other hand, in home-theater applications, curved screens are a popular option—especially for 2.35:1 ratio (scope) movie presentations. Now, LG and Samsung are introducing UHDTVs that are large enough for use in dedicated home theaters, and perhaps large enough to justify the use of the curved form factor. Furthermore, with a resolution of 5120 x 2160 pixels, these new 21:9 TVs are almost an exact match for 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies.

Quote:

"The titanic Samsung has a screen with a 21:9 aspect ratio, a closer match to ultra-wide-screen movies than to standard 16:9 HDTV shows. The 58-inch Vizio XVT3D580CM from 2012 is the only other 21:9 TV to hit the U.S. market." David Katzmaier, CNET

At 105 inches (diagonal), these are truly epic flat panels. I expect to see them both at CES, and I look forward to scrutinizing the appeal of the curved screen from a normal home-theater viewing distance.

Photo Credit: Samsung

These two mega flat-panel UHDTVs were announced mere hours apart. I'd already heard rumors that more curved screens were on their way from the South Korean TV giants, and that those TVs would be LED-lit LCDs. Clearly, it's not a rumor anymore. Sony introduced the first such TV—a 65" model—just a few months ago. However, that TV was HD, not UHD. Are these new oversized UHD screens a hint at the future of home theater? Two things are apparent—curved screens are not going away anytime soon, and OLED no longer has a monopoly on the form factor.

Marc, these is truly epic show of white elephants of technology going dead-end. It would make sense for such panels IF there would be NATIVE content to show on them and there is no hope for such content. Making 4K panels requiring upconversion sounds nonsense.

Marc, these is truly epic show of white elephants of technology going dead-end. It would make sense for such panels IF there would be NATIVE content to show on them and there is no hope for such content. Making 4K panels requiring upconversion sounds nonsense.

Netlix will stream UHD/4K in 2014, other companies are following suit. Far from being a white elephant, this is the kind of product that makes sense and can drive a market forward by appealing to wealthy early-adopters.

It's not like there won't ever be any content. If I had the dough, I'd pick one of these large screens up and enjoy up converted 1080P in the mean time. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some content revelation from CES in a couple of weeks.

Netlix will stream UHD/4K in 2014, other companies are following suit. Far from being a white elephant, this is the kind of product that makes sense and can drive a market forward by appealing to wealthy early-adopters.

Netflix can barely stream 1080p, but even if they could stream 4k in a manner that offers good picture quality I imagine it'll soon go the way of ESPN 3D.

Netlix will stream UHD/4K in 2014, other companies are following suit. Far from being a white elephant, this is the kind of product that makes sense and can drive a market forward by appealing to wealthy early-adopters.

Netflix can barely stream 1080p, but even if they could stream 4k in a manner that offers good picture quality I imagine it'll soon go the way of ESPN 3D.

Just like 3D, in the near-term the main market for UHD will be the movie-watching crowd, not sports. Also, Netflix streaming quality is very good at 1080p, so long as there's enough bandwidth to support SuperHD. It's up to the end user to make sure they have adequate bandwidth—as a rule, the target market for high-end TVs can afford to upgrade a router and pay a bit more for faster internet.

Just like 3D, in the near-term the main market for UHD will be the movie-watching crowd, not sports. Also, Netflix streaming quality is very good at 1080p, so long as there's enough bandwidth to support SuperHD. It's up to the end user to make sure they have adequate bandwidth—as a rule, the target market for high-end TVs can afford to upgrade a router and pay a bit more for faster internet.

For me netflix is Terrible at 1080p, I have a 35mbs and it buffers and sends me low res versions until sometimes it gets lucky and locks in 1080p streaming. I can't imagine how bad it would be with content that takes up 4 times as much bandwidth. I with my connection I should be able to stream 4k right now, and I can't reliably stream 1080p from Netflix as is.

I get the idea of Curved displays, as with film Camera still using curved lenses, and the viewing width of a person is limited. I just want the height of the television to match the width like a regular tv. It annoys me, when I look at widescreen without the double black bars ( the stage and the curtains). Also I impress my pro-tv family with a regular sized tele.

Also, Netflix streaming quality is very good at 1080p, so long as there's enough bandwidth to support SuperHD. It's up to the end user to make sure they have adequate bandwidth—as a rule, the target market for high-end TVs can afford to upgrade a router and pay a bit more for faster internet.

Not to derail too far from the original topic, but you and I have had this difference of opinion in other News threads before. The content delivery infrastructure that Netflix uses is not consistently up to the task of delivering 1080p video, in my personal and repeated experience. I am a Netflix subscriber as well as an Amazon Prime customer. I have a Roku XDS streaming device which is capable of delivering 1080p video. My home cable connection averages 22Mbps down and 5Mbps up. I am the only user at home and when I watch streaming content there are no other uses of the bandwidth. Side-by-side I can capably get 1080p content service from Amazon Prime, whereas for the exact same program Netflix might manage 2 of 4 bars in quality (maybe 480p). I've tested this by attempting to watch snippets of The Avengers using both services within the same time frame.

And for the record, Netflix 1080p in a browser on the HTPC doesn't work well either.

My point is, while user service bandwidth is absolutely important, merely having that in place is not a guarantee of 1080p streaming capability from Netflix; their content delivery network just isn't up to the task. And as such, my confidence in them being able to provide 4K/UHD service is non-existent. And it's not as though I live out in the boonies, I'm within the major metropolitan area of Orlando, FL USA.

For me netflix is Terrible at 1080p, I have a 35mbs and it buffers and sends me low res versions until sometimes it gets lucky and locks in 1080p streaming. I can't imagine how bad it would be with content that takes up 4 times as much bandwidth. I with my connection I should be able to stream 4k right now, and I can't reliably stream 1080p from Netflix as is.

I am curious as to how much benefit there really is for curved screen geometries in the "home" viewing demographic. I understand that there is some pin cushioning effect for a single viewer due to the difference in viewing distance between the center of the screen to the left and right edges, but wouldn't that effect be much more pronounced at a full-scale movie theatre? Why isn't the same geometry remedy being applied for large-format viewing?

I'm much more interested in what Dolby is doing with their HDR display technology development. This curved-screen detour seems like a marketing dead-end.

I always enjoy new products. and given the room space and large enough doorways, these could certainly have their place in some home theaters. I also like the scope format. I think CIH is way nicer than constant width.

all the nice things out of the way...

-105inches is still really small for a 'theater'. and unless they figure out how to fold these things up, it can't be practical to move one around. that's about the smallest you'll see paired with a projector(which is way easier to move and install)
-are they edge lit or full array? seems to me that edge-lit led's shouldn't be made larger than about 32inches. that technique just can't produce a solid backlight. at 105" I can only assume it's disgustingly bad if it's edge-lit. hopefully it's full array
-curved screen... I'm not super against the curved screens, but I still think they are totally missing the point. curved screens used with projectors make sense because the light is coming from a narrow source, and anamorphic lenses introduced pincushioning. basically, the curved screen was about the projector, not the viewer. unless the screen is starting to wrap around the viewer, I don't think there's a big enough benefit to a curved screen to make up for the obvious problems when sitting outside the focal cone.

Ya this is super bada**. Id like to see some projectors with true 2.35:1 imaging chips in them as well.

I want that to happen IF the content also adopts the scope format.

what I mean is, I don't currently feel bad zooming in my projector because I'm still displaying 100% of the detail/pixels contained in the source. I'd like to see the UHD format maybe adopt a scope aspect ratio, and then CIH would be the norm, and scope movies would be in higher resolution than 16:9

what I mean is, I don't currently feel bad zooming in my projector because I'm still displaying 100% of the detail/pixels contained in the source. I'd like to see the UHD format maybe adopt a scope aspect ratio, and then CIH would be the norm, and scope movies would be in higher resolution than 16:9

For sure. With 2.35 content now so many pixels are wasted on the black bars. I'd love to see a scope format option in the future. Scope format along with scope imaging chip projector would be the real ticket.

For me netflix is Terrible at 1080p, I have a 35mbs and it buffers and sends me low res versions until sometimes it gets lucky and locks in 1080p streaming. I can't imagine how bad it would be with content that takes up 4 times as much bandwidth. I with my connection I should be able to stream 4k right now, and I can't reliably stream 1080p from Netflix as is.

I have had similar experiences streaming Netflix.

Same here. I get good streaming experience during a weekday; but evenings, weekends, or holidays, I'm pushing it to get 480p.

why?
sources are either 24hz or 30hz. 120hz can handle both of those natively, and anything more wouldn't benefit anything.

ie, a 120hz display would show the same frame 4times for 30hz broadcast. a 240hz display would show the same frame 8times. but in both cases you get a 'new' frame 30times a second, no more, no less.

even HFR stuff at 48hz or games at 60hz would have no benefit of anything over 120hz

Not necessarily true. A 120hz will repeat the frames, whereas many 240hz will essentially show exactly what the 120hz set will show, but insert black frames in between each frame of action (scanning backlight).